June 15, 2012

The Obama administration will stop deporting and begin granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives. The election-year initiative addresses a top priority of an influential Latino electorate that has been vocal in its opposition to administration deportation policies.

How could Congress possibly allow this to happen and not completely lose credibility with the voting public? And while this might garner some votes amongst hispanics I can't see how this won't enrage many blue-collar whites and blacks.

Factory Yoyo said... If I were the Republicans, I would make this a constitutional/overreach of authority issue rather than even addressing the DREAM act itself.

Congress should be pissed, not just the GOP. Bohner should remind Reid that it might be a GOP President doing the same thing in 8 months.

Too bad Robert Byrd isn't around.

PS: this follows an Obama pattern. They did the same thing with NCLB. No need for any Congress or amended Act, just tell states that they got a waiver, if they followed the alternative structure that wasn't passed by Congress.

This isn't my area, but aren't there statutes (laws passed by both houses of Congress, signed by the President) that set forth the requirements for who may work in the U.S.? Is there some provision allowing unilateral action by the President to bypass those requirements?

I understand that on the enforcement (detaining and deporting) issues, the Executive may act unilaterally. And I imagine that the President can pardon prior crimes under the Pardon Power, but I never thought the President could pardon future crimes.

See America, this is why we must re-elect this man! He has the chutzpah to do stuff like this now, totally giving the legislative branch of government the finger; imagine what he'll do in a second term when he's even more "flexible"! Wondrous things. Sure to surprise us. Oh he'll make us like it, whether we like it or not.

He's such a macho man, I can picture him giving the Supreme Court the finger too.

You people (and I include you professor) are responsible for this. When are you going to clean it up? I'm happy to notice Choom doesn't come to Kentucky.(or at least very little) One of the bennies of being a poor southern state filled with bitter clingers I guess. I hope he never does. What a effing waste of air this guy is.

"Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

Someone should remind the President that immigration laws on the books were passed by a democratically elected Congress. Probably with a bigger margin than his "strong majority", which is, in itself, a laughable point of view to take given the vote totals on Obamacare.

See, he can just do shit by writing it on paper and signing it. All that pesky Congress stuff is just a bother that can be avoided.

He signs a document and people get their work permits. He signs a paper and he gets to take over your 401(k) money. He signs a paper and you die if you're on his kill list.

He signs a paper and he controls the internet. He signs a paper and gives himself power to create his own private army in time of national emergency. He signs a paper and declares a national emergency.

This is not a good issue for conservatives. We have fought this war for too long in trenches along our southern front, not considering those at our backs, those who have lived here multi-generations and call the US home. Where is the humanity in our treatment of them? Where would you have them go?

And to drive those who have traditionally been a naturally conservative constituency into the ranks of the democrats is just plain stupid, but we long ago made that choice, so there that goes.

The problem with this new Dream policy is that it not only rewards the progeny of those who have no qualifications other than that they can jump hurdles, swim and run fast.

Once the poor kids gain residency, they will no doubt be entitled to invite in their foreign siblings, children and even the parents who brung 'em in the first place, under the longstanding INS policy of "family reunification" that greases the immigration skids for aliens with no special talents.

Because of that, it will perversely incentivize breeding among illegals seeking to gain a foothold in Paradise.

It's not just the peremptoriness of this but the timing that signals desperation.

O just made that big "reset" speech yesterday, supposed to re-frame the election, especially on the economy and jobs. O should want-- he expected-- the MSM to flatteringly "amplify" that message, today.

Plans change.

Obviously O doesn't want anyone in the MSM to (continue to) talk about his own big speech. He had to change the subject today-- to something other, something dramatic that would distract from... his own big speech. Wow.

Give us one example of Walker doing anything where he circumvented the state legislature.

Along with making civil servant positions political appointees, there is Act 21, probably the worst bill that nobody even knows about. Act 21 vests in the governor’s office all power to enact, amend and enforce administrative rules. Administrative rules have the same force and effect as statutory laws passed by the legislature. It also shifts oversight of state agencies from the legislature to the governor's office. Not good.

While I agree with the policy, I don't agree with the method. It should make most Americans uneasy that one branch of government wields this much power. And I do believe it is mostly a reelection strategy.

That said, I am glad that the young immigrants who arrived here basically through no fault of their own and have stayed out of trouble and who have shown a desire to contribute to our economy don't have to worry about being arrested and sent back to their homeland. I don't have a problem with that.

All well and good, but you know there won't be any hard and fast rules on this. There will be equivocating and pandering, moving of goal posts, etc, and this will get watered down until all but convicted repeat offender cannibals are allowed to stay.

MadisonMan, I know some very nice students who are caught in this bind. But the answer is to get fake ID, which is easy, or to go back to Mexico (which now has lots of jobs) and work for a while and get legal status. How is that any worse than my other students who have to move thousands of miles away to get a job?

The answer is not what amounts to another mass amnesty. You think the govt can sift through the life records of half a million people? HAHA.

Along with making civil servant positions political appointees, there is Act 21, probably the worst bill that nobody even knows about. Act 21 vests in the governor’s office all power to enact, amend and enforce administrative rules. Administrative rules have the same force and effect as statutory laws passed by the legislature. It also shifts oversight of state agencies from the legislature to the governor's office. Not good.

I asked for an example of Walker's circumventing the state legislature, and you give me an example of the state legislature passing a law. Try again.

"What would you have a 4-yo do who is dragged here by his or her parents? If after 20 years they are discovered to be "illegal", where is their home?"

This is a very prickly issue because the kids that do come here illegally didn't have a choice in the matter.

I don't think I have a problem with this as an end result, but it has to be the result of some sort of compromise. Our "king" is just enacting this through his own accord as a juicy bone to the hispanic voting bloc that he is hoping to keep intact for him come November. Nothing but a naked political ploy and it stinks to high heaven.

So what can these "kids" do with a work permit as far as their parents are concerned? Can they petition for them to stay legally as well? I don't know enough about the different policies on work visas and such.

Bottomline, both houses of Congress need to come out strongly against this unilateral action that goes against the laws of our sovereign country. This is a pathetic ploy by our campaigner in chief who has run out of ideas.

I reject this premise. Voters voted in Republicans to stop laws from being passed that they didn't agree with. Republicans do as they're told by the voters, Obama does an end run around them, and it's Congress that's dysfunctional?

What no one seems to discuss is how screwed up our LEGAL immigration system has become. A few years ago, the ICE people testified in Congress against reforms that would streamline the process for those who followed the rules. The argument was that ICE depended on the fees paid by applicants for legal immigration. the longer it took to process the application (years) the more income ICE got from the applicants.

The quotas for European applicants are ridiculous. There are people all over the world with skills and ambition who want to come here and work. Instead, we get chain migration of illiterate peasants and their illiterate families who flood public facilities like hospitals and cost billions.

What's wrong with all of you people? Don't you know that the best way to cure high unemployment is to import hundreds of thousands or millions of new, low skilled workers?

I am telling you this guy is an absolute genius! His understanding of economics, the law... any subject really... is just so far beyond ours that he can see how to do these things that lesser men would be ashamed to do or would be afraid to do.

In all seriousness I think Obama just wants to beat the hell out of everyone that opposes him to the extent that they just knuckle under and start playing the Chicago patronage and protection game. Once you have a corrupt enough tyrant at the helm the only way to get ahead is to please him. If you don't then you will find yourself being replaced by someone who will... even if that someone has to be imported.

If I were the Republicans, I would make this a constitutional/overreach of authority issue rather than even addressing the DREAM act itself.

A wise comment.

… while this might garner some votes amongst hispanics I can't see how this won't enrage many blue-collar whites and blacks.

A not so wise comment. Why? Because not many "blacks" will vote against Obama despite recent wistful fantasies hoping they will vote against Obama. As for "blue-collar whites," those few who were inclined to vote for Obama before this policy change will not have their minds changed. They will still vote for Obama. Race and ideology ALWAYS trump enlightened self-interest.

If Obama somehow gets re-elected, I predict he will be impeached.

Wishful thinking. The only way to get rid of Obama is to defeat him in an election. Even if he is defeated in the upcoming election he would be around for many years afterwards as a spokesperson for the Progressive viewpoint - maybe even as an officeholder – perhaps as Mayor of a large city or in the U.S. Senate. Nothing prevents an ex-President from running for elective office. And there's nothing in the Constitution that would prevent him from running for a second Presidential term at some future date.

And they're not all named Pedro.

You're right. Some of them are named José.

The Right hurts its cause with cultural insults such as the above "Jose" comment. Voting citizens of Latino descent are turned off big time by such affronts. Wise up, conservatives, and cease the cheap shots.

So this will backfire in Obama's face and he will see that in the next round of polls.

Time will tell, of course, but I wouldn't count on it. The Democrats love to get conservatives to pontificate(usually unwisely and almost always ignorantly) on immigration issues because it invariably turns off many potential Latino voters, especially if accompanied by snide remarks about Hispanic names.

If something needs to be fixed, then Congress should do something to fix it. My perception, though, is that one side of the aisle says We need to do A, the other side says No, we need to do B, and that's the extent of their work.

“America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don’t have a choice about that. That’s part of my job,” he said. When Ramos asked a follow-up question about granting formal administrative relief to undocumented youth, Obama was even more forceful: “There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.”

If something needs to be fixed, then Congress should do something to fix it. My perception, though, is that one side of the aisle says We need to do A, the other side says No, we need to do B, and that's the extent of their work.

That's the way it is supposed to work. There are two differing opinions on how to "fix" something, so how does compromise fix anything?

During the first two years of Obama's presidency, many things were fixed. I hope they don't fix anything else. Because with this administration, everything that gets fixed seems to get broken instead.

Instead, we get chain migration of illiterate peasants and their illiterate families who flood public facilities like hospitals and cost billions.

When reference is made to “illiterate peasants and their illiterate families,” there’s an implication, perhaps unintentional, of a lower vs. upper class dichotomy. What I’m getting at is this: There’s an opinion that the thing to do is to eliminate the lower classes from south of the border but allow the educated, professional upper classes to come into the USA.

But the problems of the nations south to us from Central on down through the South American continent come largely from the elite. It’s the upper classes down there that run things and have always run things and they have been the problem from the beginning – from Cortez's time on up to today. The elite down south, as a group, is corrupted beyond redemption, almost beyond belief. Bribery, for instance, is a way of life – La Mordita. I have no wish for them to import that culture of corruption to the USA.

The "peasants," on the other hand, have come here for hundreds of years and their descendants become our doctors, scientists, engineers, Mayors, Senators, etc. Give me the peasants any day over the elites.

The policy that Obama is going to enforce is sensible, good for the country and its labor force and fair to the individuals concerned. It's also good politics.

The Republican party, whose candidates get the majority of my votes, hasn't got the balls to say no to the most strident anti immigration voices in its midst. Thus Obama fills the void. Whine all you want about the issue, Republicans, but remember that your own lack of imagination and courage made this possible.

The long term strength of the Republican party is directly tied to winning hispanic voters on a consistent basis. Unfortunately the party does not act like this is true.

Tactically, I'm not sure this move is going to win Obama many more votes. It may actually be kind of tricky for him to sell and he's not the greatest salesman to the American public lately. Also, like grackle, I do hope the Repubs offer a smart response, rather than knee-jerk.

This is nothing but cynical politics. Rubio (and GOP outreach to Hispanics) was a threat. So Obama had to cut off Rubio (embarking on a brave, complicated, controversial legislative process, at odds with much of his party) at the knees-- and preempt him by executive fiat.

The policy that Obama is going to enforce is sensible, good for the country and its labor force and fair to the individuals concerned.

It's a terrible policy for the country and its labor force. (It's also a policy which is in direct violation of US law) It's a great policy for people who are members of guild systems - lawyers, for instance. By an amazing coincidence, David just happens to be a lawyer!

You keep saying that but cannot point out one way I am misrepresenting it. Like a child stomping his feet.

Er, every single way. Everything you said was false.

For example, you stated:

Act 21 vests in the governor’s office all power to enact, amend and enforce administrative rules.

That is abjectly false. Act 21 restricts State agencies from promulgating administrative rules unless rulemaking authority is "explicitly conferred" on the agency by the Legislature.

Here is the statutory language of Act 21

227.19 (5) (e) Bills to prevent promulgation. When the joint committee for review of administrative rules objects to a proposed rule or a part of a proposed rule it shall, within 30 days of the date of the objection, meet and take executive action regarding the introduction, in each house of the legislature, of a bill to support the objection. The joint committee shall introduce the bills within 5 working days after taking executive action in favor of introduction of the bills unless the bills cannot be introduced during this time period under the joint rules of the legislature.

Again, you are an effing idiot.

Why you continue to make an utter jackass of yourself here day in and day out is unclear.

The Mexicans are fleeing their own country. Mexicans suffer no discrimination against Mexicans in Mexico. Nonetheless. it is the United States, home of so many anti-Mexican bigots, where they wish to live. I've seen a poll that says that over 60% of Mexicans say they would move to the USA if they could. What is it about this nation of bigots that makes it so attractive to immigrants and what is it about Mexico-- that enlightened country where capital punishment has been outlawed-- that makes it so repugnant to its own natives.....I would suggest that the sanctity of property rights and the rule of law have something to do with this. Mexico's leaders have a history of making idiosyncratic lurches and making shit up as they go along. Obama's fiat is something a Latin caudillo would do. If America becomes too much like Mexico, it won't be worth emigrating to.....I'm reminded of Coleman Young. His was of dealing with restive whites in the his populace was to tell them don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.....There are arguments to be made in favor of Obama's ruling, but the fact that Obama makes the ruling but not the arguments is argument against the ruling.

Act 21 provides that the exclusive means of judicial review of the validity of an administrative rule must now be brought "in the circuit court for the county where the party asserting the invalidity of the rule resides or has its principal place of business, or, if that party is a non-resident or does not have its principal place of business in this state, in the circuit court for the county where the dispute arose." Previously, such actions were required to be brought in Dane County.

Kids have to live with (and pay for) the choices their parents make all the time. Kids end up with good or bad lives very often due to the choices their parents made.

Kids who are in the US because their parents haven a valid visa have to go back to the homeland they don't know if the job ends. I see it with expat kids all the time. The adults, for heaven's sake, came to a country they didn't know. It's obviously not impossible.

I'm ok with the idea behind the policy, I don't agree at all with Obama doing this by fiat, but the "no fault of their own" argument goes nowhere.

This is absolutely untrue. Take Oaxaca, for example. It's a region widely populated by Mexicans of indigenous ethnic backgrounds and they are roundly ridiculed around the rest of the country. There is a lot of anti-Guatemalan, anti-Honduran, anti-etc-etc-not-Mexican in the southern regions as well.

Please explain to me how you came to the conclusion that "Mexicans suffer no discrimination against Mexicans in Mexico". I'm honestly curious.

Finally.He showed some courage, or he was pandering to Latinos, I don't really care in this instance , because it was the right thing to do.

The it's not their fault argument is valid, why should children be punished for the sins of their fathers? These kids are military members, responsible, contributing members of society. If they have a criminal record, they won't be eligable.

My ex son in law, a Cuban, came to this country illegally and was was given asylum. He was very apolitical, yet he was granted political asylum? He was a balsero, over the age of 18. He was given the right to apply for citizenship.

This is actually a good thing. The immigration issue is moot at the moment anyway because most of the 12 million illegals have gone home. The economy is so much in the shitter that there isn't work for illegals. The republicans could have done this themselves at no cost to us all.

"These kids are military members, responsible, contributing members of society."

-- These kids are up to 30 years old and do not have to be military. I understand people think of little six or seven year olds, but the law -- it's not really a law -- the proclamation is broad and sweeping. It's not how the U.S. is supposed to do things.

Personally, I think this is a colossal blunder by Obama. What is this going to do, shore up a few more percentage points of the Hispanic vote? On the other hand, Romney is going to have a field day: Obama is giving work permits to illegals when JOBS are the #1 issue in voters' minds. We're in a period of recession, scarcity, and fear. Shoving this into the face of millions of Americans who are already uneasy about the jobs situation is just a bad, bad, bad move. Obama's political advisors are dumber than a bag of hammers.

Maybee, the meaning to that is simply that they should not be held responsible (at least in the same way as an adult is) for the breaking of the original law. So it's just a different situation in my view than an adult coming here knowingly breaking our laws. Yes, of course many immigrants' children suffer the "here and back again" hardship. Very true. It doesn't change my view of how to deal with the problem at hand. Mass deportation does not seem feasible. I don't even know how they will implement this policy, to be honest, but I hope it works.

I am probably not even close to a conservative as far as my immigration views go. I am more of an open borders type, however, I do have a problem with some of the bending over backwards for immigrants. If they want to live here they should learn English and assimilate.

"This is actually a good thing. The immigration issue is moot at the moment anyway because most of the 12 million illegals have gone home. The economy is so much in the shitter that there isn't work for illegals. The republicans could have done this themselves at no cost to us all."

Do you really believe that most illegal immigrants have gone home and that there were only 12 million of them?

Maybee, the meaning to that is simply that they should not be held responsible (at least in the same way as an adult is) for the breaking of the original law. So it's just a different situation in my view than an adult coming here knowingly breaking our laws. Yes, of course many immigrants' children suffer the "here and back again" hardship. Very true. It doesn't change my view of how to deal with the problem at hand. Mass deportation does not seem feasible. I don't even know how they will implement this policy, to be honest, but I hope it works.

--------------

Mass deportation isn't neccesary. Allow them nothing here and they will leave on their own.

Darcy, I so agree that all immigrants really need to learn English and assimilate much more than they have. When my daughter was in Miami with her ex husband, she was criticized by a waiter, because she told the waiter she didn't speak Spanish, after he tried to take her order in Spanish.

My family came here on 1955 from Europe, the very first thing my mother and father did was to learn the language. Six years later they applied for citizenship.

The biggest problem anyone should have with this is--once again--legislating by fiat. This cannot come to good and it is a bipartisan matter. Liberals should (re)imagine conservatives legislating by executive order.

Rick Caird said...I would like to see the authority the President asserts he has to override legislation.

Again, he doesn't really care about legality. Obama wants Reublican legislators to scream and complain as loudly as possible. It will give them soundbites which they will project as "racist" on TV and in YouTube commercials.

My wife is an immigrant whose family--like Allie's--played by the rules and dropped the pretenses of divisive non-assimilation.It's better to focus counter-energy on Federal and Executive overreach. This is Obama's real legal obstacle.

"The Army’s one-year pilot program will begin in New York City to recruit about 550 temporary immigrants who speak one or more of 35 languages, including Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Igbo (a tongue spoken in Nigeria), Kurdish, Nepalese, Pashto, Russian and Tamil. SPANISH SPEAKERS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE. The Army’s program will also include about 300 medical professionals to be recruited nationwide. Recruiting will start after Department of Homeland Security officials update an immigration rule in coming days."

What part of "Spanish speakers are not eligible" don't you understand?

What is it about this nation of bigots that makes it so attractive to immigrants and what is it about Mexico … that makes it so repugnant to its own natives … I would suggest that the sanctity of property rights and the rule of law have something to do with this.

I disagree, if the opinion was sincere, with the "nation of bigots" part. Perhaps irony was meant. I do agree that "property rights" and "rule of law" may be major components of the desire of various folks to come to America.

But I think the real appeal is the more general ability to live and work without the hindrances that heavily corrupted governments, which include many among their number south of our border, inevitably bring. America is one of the few places in history where there is a reasonable chance for a better life through individual initiative.

These kids are up to 30 years old and do not have to be military. I understand people think of little six or seven year olds, but the law -- it's not really a law -- the proclamation is broad and sweeping. It's not how the U.S. is supposed to do things.

I heartily agree with the last sentence. It's rule by bureaucratic fiat. It will also probably garner some Latino votes, especially if any anti-immigration folks can be goaded into some unwise rhetoric.

Mass deportation isn't neccesary. Allow them nothing here and they will leave on their own.

My slightly different opinion: Allow them no work here and they will leave on their own.

Obama wants Reublican legislators to scream and complain as loudly as possible. It will give them soundbites which they will project as "racist" on TV and in YouTube commercials.

But I think the real appeal is the more general ability to live and work without the hindrances that heavily corrupted governments, which include many among their number south of our border, inevitably bring. America is one of the few places in history where there is a reasonable chance for a better life through individual initiative.

America is only that way because it is populated by Americans.

Mexico is not screwed up because it has a bad government. It is screwed up and has a bad government because it is populated by Mexicans.

The idea that Mexicans can improve their lot simply by moving north of the border is the same as the idea that black could improve their lot by leaving the South and moving to Detroit.

Act 21 dictates that a state agency may not submit a proposed rule to the legislature unless the governor has already approved the rule.

Note: I'm citing the actual statute

Such as:227.135 (2) Until An agency that has prepared a statement of the scope of the proposed rule shall present the statement to the governor and to the individual or body with policy-making powers over the subject matter of the proposed rule

Right or wrong, this was another stupid move by the Obama machine. It reminds us of some of the things that even independents don't like about him. He won't get much from it, because illegals don't vote...much.

The GOP and Romney need to listen to Althouse: "Better than nothing is a high standard." Leave it alone. Just let it lie there. Remind people that 1) we have an unemployment problem, and 2) this is what congress should be doing, not the President. That's all they should say about it.

If pushed, then agree that it's a tough issue, but that's exactly why it should not be done like this and used to get votes. Maybe throw in that Obama is not real good at keeping promises to those he panders to.

The Obama bus crew recently got some low riders to throw on a hydraulic suspension lift to accommodate more supporters underneath.

Darcy said...While I agree with the policy, I don't agree with the method. It should make most Americans uneasy that one branch of government wields this much power. And I do believe it is mostly a reelection strategy.

That said, I am glad that the young immigrants who arrived here basically through no fault of their own and have stayed out of trouble and who have shown a desire to contribute to our economy don't have to worry about being arrested and sent back to their homeland. I don't have a problem with that.

====================Gee Darcy, compassion is great when we have unlimited money. And when we don't have an effective 16% unemployment rate....Where "through no fault of his own", my brother in law has lost his high tech printing job and has been unable to find anything other than temp work with no health benefits.If you have no problem with this batch of 800,000 and Obama's call for higher taxes on you to help fund "hero government employees" in mainly solid blue states now overrun with illegals and bankrupt - I presume you will have no problem legalizing the 120,000 Haitian refugees we took in after earthquakes, hurricanes, and abondonment by their high-breeding rate mommas (all no fault of their own).

You will be happy to continue chain migration of unskilled and low educated 3rd world peasants and gladly pay higher income taxes in Pennsyvania to transfer to California and Illinois and Florida to pay for the hero teachers, hero cops, hero social workers and hero free medical care dispensers the newly "legit" illegals and "only temporary" (ha-ha) refugees the Dems are packing on the voter rolls?

I've lived in Los Angeles for over 30 years. I know illegals - lots of them.

They come here because Mexico sucks, and now more than ever. The only way to escape poverty there is through crime, and there is no safe criminal life in Mexico, and little safety in staying legit either. With just a little bad luck, you or your whole family will get your freaking head chopped off - literally.

The cream of Mexico has naturally left and come here to improve their lives. That has hurt their own nation enormously.

It's effect on the U.S. is mixed. They have contributed enormously to the economy, but have also nearly destroyed much of the ability of the infrastructure to work. Where they are numerous, schools, roads, hospitals and government services are vastly overloaded.

I'm torn. Most of the ones I know are good people with great values who work hard. They are often superior to Americans in many regards, including even appreciation for this country which is not their own, and doesn't seem to want them. Not all, but many are a blessing to know.

This issue is heartbreaking and and difficult, and should not be used for cheap political gain, Mr. President.

My slightly different opinion: Allow them no work here and they will leave on their own.

"Obama wants Reublican legislators to scream and complain as loudly as possible. It will give them soundbites which they will project as "racist" on TV and in YouTube commercials."--------------------Agree.1. Republicans can best play this by saying all past Administrations had agreed that Congress and the laws Congress passes would set our immigration policy.

2. That it would increase the financial distress of States like California and Illinois that Obama wants to tax Iowans and Wisconsinites and Pennsylvanians more to transfer the money to those states for "immigrant schooling, free medical care, more cops needed for crimes illegal or newly legal immigrants do".

3. Hammer on the unemployment issue. "At a time of effective 16% unemployment, near Depression levels, with some majority black cities closer to 40% unemployment...is this the right time for mass amnesties of millions of non-Americans to help them compete against Americans for too few jobs"? "Is this what FDR did in the Great Depression? Say any illegal kid who ended up here has a right to any job or school spot" Or did FDR put the interests of American workers of all races 1st?"

Darcy, Well said. I agree w/ you. However, we are apparently not only out of touch w/ commenters here; we are out of touch w/ most Americans. Mexicans are among the best immigrants to this country. C'est la vie.

Oh, come on. I DO have a problem with higher taxes in order to grow government. I DO have a problem with the lack of enforcement of our laws with regard to hiring illegals. I DO have a problem with extending welfare to illegals. I never said the system didn't need fixing. There are many, many parts to fix. This is only one piece. Of course I would like to have the whole problem solved. And, unfortunately this is the way politicians always attempt to solve it. Giveaways first. They never get to the fixing.

So, again, I don't like the method. I said it was a reelection tactic. That's what I believe. I agree that it doesn't fix a thing except for some of the people living in the shadows. I do have some compassion for them. It's just not black and white for me. Sorry.

Idiot:garage mahal said... Act 21 vests in the governor’s office all power to enact, amend and enforce administrative rules.

Which is false. I mean, it is "true" if you ignore the part of the statute saying the legislature can stop the promulgation of Administrative rules.

Not content with being proven wrong by his first silly assertion, our resident clown came back with:

Act 21 dictates that a state agency may not submit a proposed rule to the legislature unless the governor has already approved the rule.

Which of course doesn't mean the Governor can enact a rule alone. Further, the idiot can't seem to understand that the Governor is the executive responsible for running said Administrative agencies, yet somehow the Governor wanting to see rules before they are proposed is nefarious.

Note our resident idiot has never criticized Obama for such behavior (let me know when you'd like me to start citing instances of Obama WH killing proposed rules by federal agencies) at all.

So for his next trick our resident baboon will point out that the Governor has a staff and signs legislation.

Again, you are an effing idiot. I mean that in the most basic sense, you can not read and comprehend basic English sentences.

Considering the way the law is already ignored here, frankly, I wouldn't respect a man who didn't bring his family to the U.S. from Mexico.

The promise of America would be absolutely irresistible to me.

They will educate my children for free, they can go to college, we will all be 100X safer, they will give us food stamps and all kinds of other financial support if we need it, and we can work at 5 times the income, and under a working and just legal system where the police are not usually the enemy.

Bagoh20. I am with you on this but think that it is an opportune time to bright line immigrants that are here illegally inasmuch as there are one hell of a lot fewer of them now than four years ago. It has to be done at some point, why not when the burden is smallest?

The illegals I have known were generally outstanding. Remember that people who vote with their feet to come here are entrepeneurs at heart and refresh that needed gene pool.

Baghoah20 - "The cream of Mexico has naturally left and come here to improve their lives. That has hurt their own nation enormously."

That is the narrative of the past - that America only gets the creme de la creme of other countries.

The truth is many countries have Elites that are doing spectacularly well (the world's richest man is a Mexican)- that see America as a great place to dump surplus, unskilled, and unwanted people. A place to encourage people often in trouble with the law over robberies, molestations, drug trade to flee to before the local cops take 'em in a back alley and shoot them. Egypt dumped several thousand radical Muslim dissidents into America as "refugees".

Castro famously emptied his prisons and dumped the Marielitos on America. Mexico, Haiti, El Salvador all watched and learned from that.

The empirical evidence we are not "getting the creme de la creme" of the 3rd world is born out by the school dropout rates and test scores we are seeing in these refugees and economic migrants being forced out as undesirables by their own country's elites.Yes in their ranks there are hard workers, but do not think for a minute that these are the intellectual elites in search of better opportunities given their brains and education - like we got in the past from Europe, East Asia, India, or the Caribbean.

LOL. A neighbor just informed me that two birds were nesting in a shrub outfront and that I shouldn't even think of cutting things back. This from the guy whose backyard is an unkempt fire hazard--but hey--he loves birds and they love him back!

A big obstacle is that any form of amnesty will entice more, and thus backfire. We need a bright line, and that might mean accepting all that are here now, as unfair as that is, and it is really unfair to those who were doing it via legal means. It's incredibly uncomfortable to do such an injustice to solve this problem. Maybe there is a better way, but I have not heard one yet.

Mexico is not screwed up because it has a bad government. It is screwed up and has a bad government because it is populated by Mexicans.

I guess I partially agree - in the sense that there is a historical culture of corruption inculcated and perpetuated by a ruling elite that has been present in most of South and Central America since the time of the Spanish Conquest. It is the opposite of meritocracy and it's origins derive from the fact of Spain's delay(as opposed to the rest of Europe) in abandoning medieval systems of governance. I believe if England had colonized South and Central America things might have been more democratic in nature.

As for Mexicans in general: The small middle-class and the peasants are fine. It's the landed class and other elites who are the real problem.

Yes in their ranks there are hard workers, but do not think for a minute that these are the intellectual elites in search of better opportunities given their brains and education - like we got in the past from Europe, East Asia, India, or the Caribbean.

My reading of America's immigration history indicates the bulk of immigrants to America have not come from the "intellectual elites" or any educated class. Far from it. Mostly peasant or lower classes tied to agriculture or factory work. A nice short history can be found at:

There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President." - President Obama, May 2011

=============== Guess Obama "Evolved", yet again! The dude is looking pretty desperate. He is pulling every race, class, and gender warfare he and his Axelrod handlers can think of.. Republicans just need to play it cool and say this guy has no respect for Congress or the Supreme Court or the States 10th Amendment powers, was unfit to teach Constitutional Law.....and at a time when unemployment is effectively 16%, he wants to add millions of "rehabbed by diktat of the Messiah" illegals to the competition for too few jobs.

What's the big deal about kids being deported? Why am I being asked to feel so sad about it that avoiding it justifies breaking the law? Can someone unpack for me why it's such a terrible thing to send a child, or a person of any age, back to their pr their parents' country of origin which may or may not be familiar to them?

My kids were born in the continental US, lived overseas for nearly a decade, and then moved to a different coast from the one on which we originated. Children immigrating with their families--legally or not--move to a country that is entirely new to them. Neither of these scenarios are harmful to children, other than a certain degree of unavoidable disruption, so can someone explain to me why it's such a catastrophe for a kid to move from California to Guatemala, etc?

As for Mexicans in general: The small middle-class and the peasants are fine. It's the landed class and other elites who are the real problem.

Mexico is a democracy. Even it it were not a democracy, the people are ultimately responsible for the behavior of their "elites". This is true for every country in the world. You can't point your finger at "the landed class (or even more comically, at Spain!) to explain why Latin America is a corrupt basket-case.

Cedarford, you just don't know what your talking about, but that never stops you.

When I say "the cream", I don't mean people who already have a comfortable life and are well educated, I don't even think that's the cream anywhere, including here. Otherwise I would consider our President the cream, and I don't.

I mean people with the values - especially for hard work - that push an economy, by supplying a labor base while maintaining or improving a society's stability and values. Like the cream that built this nation. They didn't come from Haaarvard.

I don't want a bunch of college educated leftist from Mexico to come up here and establish La Raza chapters.

Remember that people who vote with their feet to come here are entrepeneurs at heart

Do people who are "entrepreneurs at heart" really use WIC, AFDC, Medicaid, and other welfare at rates much greater than the general population? Investment bankers know as much about entrepreneurship as do community organizers.

and refresh that needed gene pool.

Looks to me like the gene pool is actually in need of some culling. But if you think it needs refreshing, you're free to marry some poor woman from Honduras and have half a dozen children with her.

I mean people with the values - especially for hard work - that push an economy, by supplying a labor base while maintaining or improving a society's stability and values. Like the cream that built this nation

I agree and admire the work ethic and self-sacrifice of many people who have come here, legally or illegally.I think those that work, that maintain employment, should have a chance at a green card.

But let's not romanticize everyone. The old time immigrants brought the gangsters, and so have the modern immigrants. I'm not willing to pretend the gang bangers in Reseda just don't exist. I've sat on their juries.

Obama has gone from corruptly declining to enforce the law to acting without statutory authority to legalize illigal immigrants. The former violates the president's oath, the latter is a violation of Article I of the Constitution.

"That does not describe the typical Hispanic immigrant, legal or illegal."

Having know literally thousands of them, including many that I have lived with, worked with, visited their families in Mexico, even lived with a Mexican immigrant and raised her two children to adulthood.

While there are certainly bad elements among them, I do think it's most typical that they are good, hard-working, honest, and if not on the dole an advantage to the country.

Everybody has an image of what an immigrant is, but unless you know a lot of them personally, it's just an unfounded idea.

If we are going to legalize the illegal ones, then we need a way to pick and choose. I have my ideas on that.

OK, agreed, Latin immigrants are, by and large, worthwhile, hard working people. Can it not also be agreed that their migration to this country causes downward pressure on wages, espeically in the service industries.....I'm not opposed to Obama's plan, but I think it was manipulative of him to institute it at this time, so close to the election. Also, while I don't have anything against this plan, I think it is offensive to characterize those who object to it as bigots. That's just as divisive as characterizing Hispanic immigrants as gangbangers.

Mexico is a democracy. Even it it were not a democracy, the people are ultimately responsible for the behavior of their "elites". This is true for every country in the world. You can't point your finger at "the landed class (or even more comically, at Spain!) to explain why Latin America is a corrupt basket-case.

You'll be blaming Africa's problems on colonialism next.

True enough, Mexico is nominally a democracy, but I would submit that in these mass-murder filled days it is close to becoming a failed democracy. The Mexican government, democratic or not, from the highest to the lowest level, is riddled with corruption and has been since the Conquest. In citing the Spanish colonial influence I merely attempt to trace the historical origins of the present day situation.

I don't hew to the commentor's sentiment that the "people" always get what they deserve. That seems a bit extreme to me. Did the millions that starved in Russia during the Stalin era deserve their fate? I don't think so. I think it better to blame the perps - not the victims.

In much of Latin America institutionalized corruption is more of a tradition than an overt political principle. Whether it came from the influence of Spanish colonialism or not corruption is rampant. The culture of corruption exists alongside and intertwined within nominally democratic institutions like a virus and its ubiquity throughout the system greatly negates what would normally be the expected benefits of democracy. The level of corruption is beyond the average American's comprehension. Instances of crony capitalism like Solyndra pale in comparison. In Mexico and many other Latin-American countries, the fix is ALWAYS in and frequently accompanied by violence. It's so common it is expected and taken for granted

True enough, Mexico is nominally a democracy, but I would submit that in these mass-murder filled days it is close to becoming a failed democracy. The Mexican government, democratic or not, from the highest to the lowest level, is riddled with corruption and has been since the Conquest. In citing the Spanish colonial influence I merely attempt to trace the historical origins of the present day situation

True enough, Mexico is a very fucked up country.

But you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that fucked-up countries are the way they are - for the most part - because they are populated by fucked up people.

In much of Latin America institutionalized corruption is more of a tradition than an overt political principle. Whether it came from the influence of Spanish colonialism or not corruption is rampant.

Corrupt people do tend to result in corrupt institutions, for reasons which seem so blindingly obvious as to need no further comment.

While there are certainly bad elements among them, I do think it's most typical that they are good, hard-working, honest, and if not on the dole an advantage to the country.

The only thing which matters is how the average immigrant compares to the average native. If they are "better" on average in some sense than the existing Americans - smarter, harder-working, more honest, more law-abiding - then they are a net asset. If they are "worse" than the natives on average - less intelligent, more apt to use welfare, more apt to commit crime - then they are a detriment.

The average Hispanic immigrant, legal or illegal, is a net loss for the country. On average they cost more money than they contribute.

They also pervert the entire political sphere - the story we are commenting on is fine example. We have so-called "conservatives" arguing that we need to out-bid the Democrats in attempting to buy Hispanic votes.

"These kids are military members, responsible, contributing members of society."

-- These kids are up to 30 years old and do not have to be military. I understand people think of little six or seven year olds, but the law -- it's not really a law -- the proclamation is broad and sweeping. It's not how the U.S. is supposed to do things.

When I first saw "graduates", and those working to graduate, I thought that they meant college graduates. No - apparently, it means HS graduation, or GED. Likely, a lot of those here could have gotten their GED at 16 or so, if they had wanted to. Know a number of people who dropped out and did so.

Which gets us to the "veterans" part - today, it is highly unlikely that you could be a veteran under 30 and not have a HS diploma or GED, for the simple reason that throughout much of the last couple of decades, and most definitely since the Obama Recession started, you pretty much need such to get in. No longer can the person with an 8th grade education get into the military - rather, they are competing with people with some college under their belts.

So, I would suggest that the inclusion of veterans is almost pure window dressing. No one can really disagree with people who have voluntarily dedicated their lives to maintaining our freedom, being allowed to stay here, and, I would think, be given a fast track towards citizenship. This sort of thing has a long honored history, dating at least from Roman times.

I say "window dressing" because veterans are almost all going to be HS grads, AND, almost no one can disagree with them being treated this way, or better. So, the proponents can claim that anyone who disagrees with this policies is against veterans. In the end though, because we are talking going to K-12 or being a HS (or GED) grad, we are pretty much talking most illegals under 30 who have spent at least 5 years in this country and who came here before 16.